Posted by kcg on 7/30/11 3:21pm
Msg #392080

Printed "Signature"

Today I took out a structured settlement for a 27 yo man....he printed his signature, said he never learned cursive and it was a source of embarrassment for him. His "printed signature" matched the one on his State ID so I had to accept it. The sad thing is that with so many states now passing legislation that cursive is NOT to be taught in schools, we'll have a new wave of "printers".

Reply by HisHughness on 7/30/11 3:59pm
Msg #392086

It's his signature

Your signature can be any form you wish it to be, as long as it is based on your name. I can write cursive, but if I wished to print my signature I could do so. Quite a few of the borrowers I sign are Mexican nationals, and almost all of them sign with a printed signature.

Better that than the chicken scratches many people like to foist off on us.

Reply by Notarysigner on 7/30/11 5:44pm
Msg #392091

Re: It's his signature

While there are certain people on this forum who would dictate how you must sign a document you must resist the opportunity to add to the insanity. It is his/her signature.

How would you judge a veteran who signed with their feet because they lost both their arms?

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/30/11 10:38pm
Msg #392117

Re: It's his signature

I don't think it's even necessary for it to be based on one's name. Seems that in several parts of the world (including many Latin American countries), people have what could be called a "mark" as much as a signature. To most of us, it might look like just a bunch of squiggles with maybe a dot or a few thrown in, but they consistently reproduce the same thing over and over.

In fact, it can sometimes create an issue with translation when asking someone to sign their name. Their "signature" or "firma" doesn't necessarily spell their name, but it's how they sign things. In our culture, it's one and the same thing, but not so in other cultures. So "signing" and "writing their name" may mean two different things to some people. Hope this makes sense...

Reply by jnew on 7/31/11 4:46pm
Msg #392153

Re: It's his signature

The wife from a signing last week printed. She was born and educated in Poland and they were never taught cursive handwriting. Her signature has several flourishes in it that made it distinguishable and unique. It still looked like printing to me but she maintained it was her signature and it matched her id. I was anticipating a call from the settlement agent on this, but it never happened.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/30/11 4:12pm
Msg #392088

I've had a couple loan signings like that

can't argue with them when they say "I can't write it - this is how I sign my name" - never had one kicked back.

Reply by Cheryl Anderson on 7/30/11 6:19pm
Msg #392096

Re: I've had a couple loan signings like that

Excellent post! I am in the Southern California area, and I get a lot of signers that "print" their name as their signature. I am satisfied if the "signature" matches how they signed their ID. I loved "NOTARYSIGNER'S) point.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 7/30/11 6:11pm
Msg #392095

Your signature is whatever you want it to be, as long as you're (reasonably) consistent. There's no rule I'm aware of that says your signature must be in cursive. If he's got an ID with a cursive signature and now he's printing it (or vice versa), that would raise a red flag - but if it's consistent, there's really no problem.

I do agree with you that it's unfortunate cursive is no longer being taught in some (many?) states, but we're living in a different world now. Maybe it really doesn't need to be taught anymore - when you think about it, what purpose does it serve in a digital world?

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/30/11 8:28pm
Msg #392100

Speaking of signatures ...

At a recent loan signing, borrower's name was, let's say: Pawal Kaswinder Scoobiedo. She signed my journal: Scoobiedo Pawal K.
I alerted her that her signature could be a problem with the lender. Her alpha male husband (who wasn't even on the loan or title!) buttinskie'd in and informed me that was how she signed her name. End of story. So I walk this tightrope, not wanting to tick them off and not really knowing just how picky the lender will be. Nonetheless, I forged ahead, noting that her signing her last name first would probably be OK, (I'm not even sure about that) but just a "K' for Kaswinder may not fly, thus possibly resulting in extra costs, a re-sign, delay of funding, etc. Hubby basically told me to stuff it, cos he was King and his word and judgment would not be challenged. His wife was one of those who didn't take a breath without his OK. I finally said all right then, this is your decision.

I even got the SS owner on the phone, who gave him the drill. No way would they budge. On my way out, I turned to hubby, cheerfully telling him to keep his fingers crossed the signature would be OK. So, of course, the next day I get a call from their lender asking me to go back as her signature was "completely unacceptable." I asked him if he had talked to the boss man and what did he have to say? The LO laughed, saying he told hubby it was "his way or the highway." Hee Hee. As it turned out I couldn't do the re-sign, which was just as well. I really didn't want to for obvious reasons, and it was probably better somebody else went out .. esp. a male-type signer, if you get my drift.

The best part is that because both the SS and I had documented all this in writing, the lender was so mad they socked them a full signing fee for the re-sign - $400 total for both signings.

This incident also points out the pitfalls of a borrower who is a front for a loan - in this case the meek wife who turned to her husband EACH time before she signed to get his permission. But that's another thread....

Reply by FlaNotary2 on 7/30/11 9:05pm
Msg #392102

I think this has to do with Middle Eastern/Asian naming

customs... and I think - though I'm not sure - that some Middle Eastern countries have what we would consider a "surname/family name" as a first name, with the given names second. Using your example of Pawal Kaswinder Scoobiedo, this may be an Americanized version of her name - but her real name is Scoobiedo (surname), Pawal K. (first and middle initial).

We had a client whose name was ex. Scoobiedo Pawal on all legal documents - which is the un-Americanized version of the name - with last name first. So, in the eyes of the law, Scoobiedo was her first name, when in fact, she went by Pawal, which she considered to be her given name.

Interesting stuff. The "First, Middle, Last" format we are used to is not what is used throughout the world. Pakistan doesn't even use last names in the sense we do - but people are identified with the name of their father - such as "Pawal d/o Scoobiedo Ashraf" (Pawal, daughter of Scoobiedo Ashraf). We have had many Pakistani clients - and I've never quite been able to figure out exactly how it works.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 7/30/11 10:09pm
Msg #392109

Re: I think this has to do with Middle Eastern/Asian naming

Good point. Naming conventions vary significantly from region to region. In Spanish speaking countries, for example, it's typical to have the given name, followed by the father's surname, followed by the mother's name. Ex: Jose Garcia [from father] Moreno [from mother]. When he has children, the surname he gives to them is Garcia.

I also had someone from Asia (Singapore maybe) recently explain to me the same thing Robert said about the family name coming first. He said that when they became citizens, they changed the order of their names to conform to American style names. It's something we should be aware of and take into consideration when IDing people, imo.

Reply by HisHughness on 7/30/11 10:22pm
Msg #392111

Re: I think this has to do with Middle Eastern/Asian naming

Scoobiedo seems to be a common surname in Asia and the Middle East. Odd that I have never encountered it.

Reply by Claudine Osborne on 7/30/11 10:29pm
Msg #392115

Re: I think this has to do with Middle Eastern/Asian naming

I had some signers from India a couple of years ago..they did not understand when Iasked them to use cursive! The Mr. said they print..so thats how they signed by printing..didnt have an issue. We just don't know the rules and customs of other countries.

Reply by Linda_H/FL on 7/30/11 10:28pm
Msg #392114

I had a similar situation - title and lender

accepted all the docs as she signed them and there were no issues at all...

Reply by Julie/MI on 7/31/11 1:11pm
Msg #392142

Re: I had a similar situation - title and lender

As previous poster said sometimes the DMV or social security americanizes a persons name. Most often with the India/Pakistan names. The LO should catch this in the preliminary docs (but this will only happen when hell freezes).

It's a cultural thing and some states/provinces in India the wife takes the husband's first name as her last or something like that. So her license is correct, but the LO Assumed they had the same last names when in fact they do not, so the closing docs are wrong. PITA!!!!

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/31/11 2:40pm
Msg #392147

Everybody's fault

The point in my previous long-winded post was not that she had a foreign name and was bound by Old Country traditions (we can go with that), and not that she signed her last name first (we can go with that, too). It was that she signed only a "K" for her middle name when it was spelled out "Kaswinder" (or whatever) on the docs. That's what I encouraged her to do - just sign her full middle name. That's why the lender rejected the docs.
Why would it have been so difficult for her to bend a little and just sign her middle name as shown on the docs instead of only the first letter esp. when I had alerted her to all the bad possibilities that might ensue? A $200 "I'll sign my name any way I want to" (or in her case "any way my husband tells me to") mistake.

And Julie's response that lenders need to take more responsibility for this is so true (esp. the part about "when hell freezes"). My borrower had signed all initial disclosures exactly the way she signed the final docs. So if it was good enuff for the lender them, why reject the final docs? Because, they're ... well, we know why ....

Reply by jba/fl on 7/31/11 4:24pm
Msg #392150

Re: Everybody's fault

I disagree that it is everybody's fault. Whatever she signed on her DL and Passport and/or other identifying material is what she should be allowed to sign, regardless of what others wish to impose upon her.

I did not see, nor did you state, what she historically signs. at this point, there is really not enough information for me to comment further beyond stating that if she consistently and historically signs only K then she is correct and the rest of them are not. But if she signs full name, then she is bound to that - to keep the history and custom consistent.

Reply by GOLDGIRL/CA on 7/31/11 10:36pm
Msg #392162

Really?

<<I disagree that it is everybody's fault. Whatever she signed on her DL and Passport and/or other identifying material is what she should be allowed to sign, regardless of what others wish to impose upon her. >>

While I agree with you in theory, is this what you would actually say to a lender/SS after they rejected a loan because the borrower didn't sign his/her name the way it was printed on the docs: " ... she should be allowed to sign, regardless of what you wish to impose upon her"??

Would that we could say that, but that would be the last loan I'd ever be called to do from that lender/SS (and in the case of one SS, it was).

Furthermore, I don't really care how they signed their DL or passport or anything else. I care how they signed my journal. This is based on the fact that my once lovely, readable signature on my DL nowhere comes near what it degenerated to on my passport - and after all these years signing as a notary, my signature now is a complete embarrassing garbled mess that barely looks like writing. I agree with a previous poster that one's signature is what it is for that day.
I also agree with LKT who likes illegible signatures. That way nobody can say how a borrower signed. This, of course, only shows what hypocrites lenders are - if they can read the signature and don't like it, they can demand a re-sign and force the borrower to sign the way they want them to sign (if they want the loan). However, if they can't read the signature, then that's OK.

I once had a borrower put his MI in the descending loop of the "g" in his last name. I got a hysterial call from the SS, saying I had to go back out on my dime and have him re-sign everything because his MI was included in the way his name was priinted on the docs. They were not amused when I told them where they could find it. (But I was)!

Reply by Julianne Akyol on 8/1/11 12:38am
Msg #392166

Re: Really?

Now, please respond to the second paragraph, wherein I stated that there was not enough information, etc.

Then, I will be able to address your hysterical rantings that were ill formed and out of whack with the tone and intent of what I was attempting to say. Also, there have been so many discussions here so I am going to cite a few for you, also suggesting that you jump on them as you did on me.

Msg #392161 Bob_Chicago
Msg #392154 MikeC/NY who said essentially the same thing as I - both of this in this thread

Msg #383722 PAW - oh, gee - I think you were asking the question here. Haven't learned to defend your actions yet?
Msg #316321 PAW
Msg #314978 Janet CA
Msg #314966 Janet Ca

Almost to a one, the concensus is that you cannot force someone to alter their signature to suit someone else's silly rule. If they sign differently, i.e., Julianne Akyol is not legible as such and is only 4 letters if anyone gets to counting, but historically that is my signature on all paperwork that I produce, no matter what anyone wants. You or any particular person can not make me sign differently and expect the court (any court) to accept it as me. So, if anyone uses all the letters in my name, or puts the last name first, first name last, they are wrong and I will challenge them on whatever transaction may be at issue.

Forgive my harshness or possibly sounding harsh, but I think you went overboard with me on this. You have my ire right now and Ann Landers and Dear Abby would have me wait until morning to post this but I have a busy, early day so you will have to take it as it is.

But first, you really should answer my paragraph two of the message you are responding to for if it parallels MikeC/NY's Msg #392154 you can understand better where I am coming from. And as others said also, if you included a copy of ID with the loan docs, then it should support the signature, and your reasoning for allowing that signature to stand on the paperwork.

Otherwise we may just have to agree to disagree.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/1/11 10:42pm
Msg #392256

For the record...

After re-reading those old posts, I feel I should add that one key ingredient for me is that I also have their thumbprint in my journal, so there is ultimately no question about being able to prove the identity of the person who signed both my journal and the documents.

Reply by LKT/CA on 7/31/11 6:04pm
Msg #392157

Re: Everybody's fault

I'm always happy when a borrower's signature is illegible......regardless of what variation of their name is typed on the loan docs <i.e. Jane Marie Doe / Jane M. Doe / Jane Doe / J. Marie Doe / J.M. Doe / J. Doe> the signature cannot be recognized anyway so there's no point in saying "Please sign as your name is printed on the docs."

My own signature is illegible so signing "as my name is printed" would be completely different from the way I've signed for the last 22 years. One of my best friends prints for a signature.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 7/31/11 5:23pm
Msg #392155

Re: I had a similar situation - title and lender

"As previous poster said sometimes the DMV or social security americanizes a persons name. Most often with the India/Pakistan names."

That was actually common practice during the big European immigrations in the early 20th Century. A lot of immigrants coming into Ellis Island in NY (the primary entry point) had their names "Americanized" because the officials there either couldn't or wouldn't figure out how to spell them correctly.

Reply by MikeC/NY on 7/31/11 5:02pm
Msg #392154

Re: Speaking of signatures ...

Did the signature on her ID match the way she signed the docs? If so, the lender really has nothing to complain about - their "completely unacceptable" should have been unacceptable, because that's the way she signs her name.

It's a cultural thing, and IMO it's wrong to try to force people to comply with our view of how a signature is supposed to look - if that's how they sign, and it matches the sig on their ID, so be it. Sometimes it's better if they just use a scrawl...

I had a signing a couple of years ago with an Asian gentleman whose "signature" included a couple of symbols I'd never seen. Looked again at his ID, and that signature included the same symbols. Alrighty then - we're good to go... It looked a bit weird, but who am I to judge?

I didn't get a call back on that one, but that could be because I included a copy of the ID in the return package. Either that, or no one back at the mother ship was paying any attention...

Reply by Bob_Chicago on 7/31/11 7:50pm
Msg #392161

I go through the motions of telling them to "Sign exactly as

you mane is types on dox" Sometimes one way on title dox and another on some, or all of the lender dox) but as I understand it, once you as a NP have verified their identitly, and watches them sign, then your notarization is your verification as a NP that they signed the dox and that is the way that they are intending to sign their name on that particular day.I don't see how (bariring faking out the notary, they anyone acan validly question they are the individual that signed the dox on the date in question, with the intent of binding themselves to the obligatons as set forth in the documents.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/1/11 6:58am
Msg #392169

Why I find this so utterly ridiculous ...

The whole notion of dictating to a person how they should design their own signature/mark is just ludicrous IMO, without any legal basis that I have ever found, AND ... AND (sorry, yes I am shouting) it totally destroys the security of their signature.

In all the legal definitions out there - "signature" in the U.S. revolves around the central word "intent". An "X", an illegible scrawl, a picture of a boat ...to satisfy a binding mark, it must show "intent". But, this is a whole other debate, really.

Detecting a fraudulent signature is something of an art, but no matter how skilled you are at it, there a certain requirements to enable you to have a snowball's chance of doing it. You need to have a decent number of samples to compare against, and you need to be able to rely on those samples as belonging to the signer. No matter how neat, precise and consistent you believe your signature to be - each and every signature will vary, unless you're using a stamp. They will contain constant elements, though - and those constants DEPEND upon your own familiarity with how you execute your mark.

When a person must sign their mark in an unfamiliar way, it completely disrupts their familiar 'flow', and even signing in this unfamiliar way 100 times is not enough to over-ride that lack of familiarity. It can have the same appearance as a forged signature - because essentially, that's the manner in which they are executing the mark. You may as well be telling them to draw a boat instead of signing their name.

So, when a loan pkg of say 45-100 'designed' signatures is reviewed specifically for signature validity - you have one basis of the 'familiar' signature on the ID, and nothing to compare to it. All you can do is look for what constants might remain, and use whatever new patterns establish themselves. Basically, all you can do is assume the averages.

Which takes me to my second rant - niche training. When we refer to "Lenders" who insist on a designed signature, it boils down to a single person - the Lender's closer/funder. This person is the one who gets to say yay or nay, and holds the money until satisfied. This person may be very well trained, highly knowledgeable, motivated to truly comprehend all the parameters, actually WANT to close & fund loans - or, this person may be a maniacal power-tripping "this is how I've always done it" type who enjoys nit-picking, who never questions anything they've been 'told', and whose experience has been very, very limited to the niche in which they're operating - particularly when that niche is further limited to one employer, one location/region, one set of "this is how we've always done it" arbitrary rules.

It is FAR cheaper to hire someone to fill a niche, the smaller the niche, the cheaper it is - than to invest in someone possessing a much broader knowledge and a thirst to keep learning more.

For those among us who deal with the Lender's closers/funders, I'm sure we'd all agree - there are far more 'niche-trained' out there than in years past, and we're basically at their whim and mercy. Doesn't matter if they don't make sense, possess no rhyme to their reasons, contradict legal precedent or change their demands from one day to the next - you can't push a rope up a hill.

Reply by CF on 8/1/11 8:53am
Msg #392174

Do you get $85 for being the signature police or $65 and

throw it in for free? Wow, Signing Agents, Lenders, Title Co's, and SS's have taken over the world and can now dictate a "legal" signature.


You know sometimes people just need to be told to go and pound sand!!!!

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/1/11 12:58pm
Msg #392186

Ok, I'm totally confused by your comment ...

...but certainly that doesn't make it a reflection on you, CF. I'm far too easily amused and confused!

I'm not sure what you were after, (and I won't touch the fees mentioned), but perhaps I should clarify my point - which was that the Lender's personnel are, by their very request of specific signature constraints, actually hindering the detection of fraud and for no good benefit that I can dream up.

Reply by CF on 8/1/11 1:03pm
Msg #392187

ReneeK-NOT directed to you at all! Your post makes sense!!!!

Directed, in general, to the people that believe that they can dictate some one's signature.

Reply by ReneeK_MI on 8/1/11 1:06pm
Msg #392188

Ahhh, like I said, I'm quite easily amused and/or confused! n/m

Reply by Notarysigner on 8/1/11 11:29am
Msg #392181

ReneeK..You are so right on with your shout out! I was

told by a very good SS I did a lot of work for that they could no longer use me because the "FUNDING OFFICER" didn't like my signature.

Now I have had my signature forged, it cost me a lot of money before I could get the problem resolved. I was advised by a handwriting expert to never lift the pen off the paper once I started my signature thus making it extremely differcult to duplicate. Now you know why some people "scribble" when writing their name.

Reply by JanetK_CA on 8/1/11 2:59pm
Msg #392194

Awesome post!

Thanks for doing such a great job of exposing the ridiculousness of one of my pet peeves! And I think you nailed the reason behind it.

I cringe whenever I see those instructions dictating how a person MUST sign their name on one of the largest transactions most people make in their lives. I don't think they'll find any other arena where they're asked to sign anything of any consequence and be effectively asked to alter their customary signature.

I deal with lots of non-native born people from all over the world and this is a constant issue. However, I have learned from experience that if we ignore this lender request it can be costly. Ironically, the situation where I collided with this was with a neighbor with very neat handwriting. Docs had her signature with a middle initial which she said she never uses and insisted that it wouldn't make a difference. Fortunately, I had her sign a note saying that I advised her that by undersigning her name the documents might not be acceptable to the lender - or something to that effect. And I was back there the next day (at full fee) resigning the whole package with her.

I hate to have to ask people to sign their name differently than how they always do it elsewhere and will only do that if it's a clear case of undersigning (or over-signing) Like Lisa, I love the scratch marks that can't be deciphered enough to know if it's undersigned or over-signed!